What is the left for? I ask the question for good reason. The good reason is that the left does not seem to know the answer.

If we accept that the parliamentary representation of the left in the UK as a whole has been predominantly the preserve of the Labour Party, with the Liberal Democrats having provided a refuge for some, then whatever identity the left has had has largely been lost. This fact now sets these two parties apart from most others.

The Conservatives remains a party for something: they promote the interests of wealth.

The SNP and Plaid Cymru have unambiguous underlying themes of interest.

The same is true of the Greens.

And UKIP.

To a very large degree the interests of the major parties in Northern Ireland are clearly identifiable.

But, to pick an easy theme, what are the Liberal Democrats for now?

And, come to that, is anyone really confident about the purpose of the Labour Party?

I will from here on ignore the Liberal Democrats: they are, I suspect, a spent force in British politics, destroyed by their Orange Book tendency and no longer as a result a part of the left. But that still leaves Labour.

It is easy to say what Labour was. Founded in the midst of the class struggle of the late 19th century it combined Fabian vision and trade union muscle in a desire to create parliamentary representation for the working people of the UK so that they might enjoy a better standard of living.

I am confident that in my life time I, and millions of others, could say that this defined what we knew Labour was for. Although they might never have won elections I believe that this was true under the leaderships of both Neil Kinnock and John Smith.

Then everything changed. Until Tony Blair became leader of the Labour Party it could be identified for what it was for. From the moment that he led it that changed. What Tony Blair was for was power. He intended to achieve it by not being something: Blair's Labour Party was not the Conservatives.

It is entirely true to say that John Major's government was so bad that it gifted Blair the opportunity to be elected on the basis of being anything but Major's Conservatives. It is equally true that so bereft of potential leaders were the Conservatives in the post-Thatcher era that Blair could keep on winning, whatever happened (and remember that he won after Iraq). But I suggest that it was during the Blair years that Labour forgot what it was for.

This was not, however, without consequence. Whilst Labour might have defined itself on the basis of what it was not, the obvious development of the idea was to define politics on the basis of what you opposed.

So the Conservatives opposed a whole string of things including trade unions and anything that protected working people; professional people who might know what they were talking about; environmentalists; Brussels and most things that felt like human rights.

UKIP opposed the EU, the euro and migration.

Plaid Cymru, the SNP and Sinn Fein in their differing ways opposed Westminster.

The Greens opposed unsustainability.

And in all this Labour simply continued to oppose the Conservatives.

The Liberal Democrats meanwhile became the parrot-monger in chief of an oppositional rhetoric to Labour because the Conservatives had given them the power they had always craved but which Labour had not delivered for them. It was that decision to define themselves as being in opposition without ever offering a positive vision of what they were for has consigned the Liberal Democrats to history.

There is now a real chance that Labour is now heading the same way, and there is no clear indication that it understands this. The current dispute between what I might call the Momentum and Parliamentary wings of the Party are in a sense pre-historic: the tensions between the Fabian and trade union traditions have never really gone away, with the Fabian's always dominating the parliamentary party and unions the constituencies. It is easy to see the continuation of that divide in the current struggle. But what that struggle does not as yet reveal is much vision, and this remains where the crisis is located.

Those criticising the PLP have good reason to do so. It has made power its goal. Once the Conservatives recovered a semblance of cohesion Labour lost to power, twice. That was because Labour had forgotten what to do with power. That the Conservative led governments that replaced it had little clue what to do in office has not, so far, been enough to damn them: opinion polls suggest they still match Labour head to head. On its own terms the PLP has failed. It was very obvious that new leadership was needed. It is equally clear why the pre-2010 membership of the PLP has no idea how to supply the required vision: vision is something they have never embraced, power having always been the goal in itself.

That said, the Momentum wing also has difficulties. If the PLP has utterly embraced managerialism (metaphor: the message is more important than the content) then the left of Labour has always been about vision without much understanding of delivery, largely because the prospect of getting near power always seemed so remote.

I unambiguously prefer the message of the left in the current dispute. That is not hard to say: it would be hard to find a message that the rest are delivering. But wise parties know that they have to combine message content and delivery, and for that to work they need three things.

The first is a vision. Call it a plan if you will: it's the thing both Blair on Iraq and Cameron on Europe so clearly lacked, but both are only metaphors for a wider failing.

The second is a delivery mechanism. This is a sound economic programme without which not much else is possible.

The third is the ability to persuade. There is no doubt that in the twenty first century this matters, a lot.

All three have to be present, unless the major opposition is so lacking in at least two when the deficiencies of an elected party are grudgingly ignored.

New Labour never had a vision: no one knew what the 'third way' was unless it was anything that Old Labour had not done.

New Labour's economics were neoliberal, founded on debt fuelled growth.

But you have to agree that for a long time New Labour did know how to deliver a message, even if it was largely lacking in content.

In contrast the left have an imprecise vision: whilst clearly rooted in the socialist tradition with a bias to working people and an instinct for liberals causes that message has not been refined to represent a plan, in my opinion (and, I stress, this is a personal perspective).

I would also suggest that as yet Labour does not have a clear economic plan, and I can say this as the person who supposedly wrote it (I will return to this issue in a moment).

Thirdly, however looked at the present Labour leadership have not got their communications together. I am regularly told that Labour do not get media coverage because the press releases are not available when required and stories are not pitched on time for the news cycle. Some of that may be misinformation, but I am not entirely sure of that.

I am also aware that the current Labour leadership is really hard to reach, which is no way to communicate.

And at the same time many of those expected to deliver in the shadow cabinet really did not know what the line that they were meant to communicate was.

These are the reasons why I suggested Jeremy Corbyn needs to stand aside for someone who can achieve these aims.

That though would be utterly pointless unless there was a clear understanding from a new leader on the first two issues: vision and delivery. The two are of course linked but on this issue of linkage the current Labour leadership also needs to improve its act.

John McDonnell was right to look at very obvious delivery problems when he became shadow chancellor last year. If I may, again, take a personal perspective on this issue, of course I was pleased that my messages on People's QE and the tax gap were adopted by Jeremy and John. I also thought a focus on tax allowances, the Bank of England and management of the Treasury were appropriate. All are necessary as part of a new delivery mechanism. Some, I think survive, although the Bank of England review has fallen by the wayside right now and I am unsure about the review of the Treasury.

But, and this is a very big but, going back just to the issues I was most involved with, People's QE and the tax gap were not issues raised for their own technical sake. There were policy goals that they fulfilled.

They were intended to fund a Green New Deal (rename it as you will: I do not care). That was about beating austerity, providing counter-cyclical investment, releasing what we called a 'carbon army' that created new jobs in every constituency (this being the core message) that would build the sustainable energy, transport, IT and housing we need. All this was designed to be delivered in a way that promised stable inflation, manageable debt and critically, when it comes to tax, a fair and progressive tax systems where all were going to be treated equally before the law whatever income they had, wherever it came from and whether they were large or small, a company or individual, national or international. That tax goal in itself was not simply a management issue; it was intended to create opportunity for honest people and businesses to invest knowing there weren't people unfairly undermining them. Tax, industrial and social policy was integrated, in other words.

But last summer we only heard the PQE and tax gap bits: the managerial delivery elements and not much of the vision. The plan did not as a result hang together in the way the whole Green New Deal did. To put it another way, and to come right back to the beginning of this piece, there was no statement of what the policy was for. I maintain that I created good delivery mechanisms that I hope and believe will be used. But they have to fitted into a bigger plan.

The means that the left then has to know what it is for.

Economics is not enough, although vital.

Sound management of messaging is essential, but there has to be content and then both content and message have to appeal.

But there has also to be the answer to the most fundamental question, which is 'why?' Why vote for the left?

Slogans do not work here unless they are representative of substance: for decades party managers have come up with pithy phrases to encapsulate the supposed themes of party congresses and all will have fallen by the wayside in days. The 'why' has to reflect a deep seated reality that is economic, but much broader.

Go back to the start where I summarised what the other parties are about in single words. Wealth. Independence. Sustainability. They are pithy and sufficient to understand the offering.

So what is the left's offering in a single word that can really represent what it is all about? My best suggestion is justice.

Justice at work and at home; on housing, education and health; for people with disabilities and those who are discriminated against; on tax and access to economic opportunity, including the chance to create your own business; internationally where peace is a vital goal and conflict resolution the way to achieve it; between generations on natural resources and pensions; between those who have wealth and those who have not: the list goes on but the word is a constant.

And that word embraces the issues of real concern. Justice recognises conflict and demands plans to solve it. Immigration is an obvious area where this has to happen.

Justice recognises difference too, and the need for respect but not separation.

Justice is unambiguous that the aim is fairness, but not enforced similarity.

Justice demands equality of treatment but has to respect choice and the free will that makes us the people we are.

Justice says we care but it requires action, because justice has never happened by chance.

Justice is about knowing when to intervene and when to leave well alone.

Justice respects polarity, but seeks to embrace it within a totality.

Justice, then, demands a plan. It cannot be delivered without one. And in politics planning is the single greatest absent skill.

Justice is what the left is about and, I suggest, everything else is secondary.

It is the single word that can resonate and is understood by almost everyone, instinctively as to what it implies.

It is true that in the longer term the mines needed to be shut down. However at the time of the strike Global Warming was not seen as a big threat by any outside of a small part of the scientific community so making it look like a far sighted move is nonsense.
Mrs T wanted to smash the Unions and she was quite happy to waste the one-time bonanza of North Sea oil to do so.
The mines could have been closed down over a period of years taking time to plan for the changes that would occur.
Instead they, along with so much of our real wealth creating industry, was sacrificed to the whims of speculative capitalism.

I support the Liberal Democrats because I believe in proportional representation. The case against it is that it produces weak government. I prefer representative, messy government that grapples toward compromise than the imposition of the will of a minority with disproportionate influence. For me, it’s like getting the money out of politics, a basic proposition fairness.

On the whole left/right issue and “socialism”, there’s an article in The Atlantic on Finland that is worth a look (an interview with a Finn living in the US who has written a book contrasting Finland and the US).

Tony Blair, hate be upon him (obligatory these days?), got one big thing right: Labour has to hold the middle ground to be electable. I don’t believe it will do that under Corbyn. He appears to be a Michael Foot Mk 2. Great guy but not a PM.

Murdoch’s heavily-backed choice for Australian PM, Tony Abbott, became intensely unpopular and was thrown out during his first term in office. News Corp’s full-blown campaign against Trump as Republican nominee failed miserably and backfired on Fox News and other Murdoch outlets that saw the “Republican base” as their core audience. His overt support for Palin was just as ill-fated and those are just some examples.

Those tabloids (and broadsheets) are nowhere near as influential as they once were. They are declining rapidly due to technological change and the slow dying-off of the aging demographic that is their core readership.

They still retain some influence and I am still in favour of outright annihilation as a policy toward Murdoch in particular, but to say that they are “even more influential now” is clearly contrary to evidence.

Yes. I couldn’t agree more. (I’ve been using “social justice”, but your single word is better.)

Where is the standard bearer for justice? If a credible alternative candidate appeared, I might be persuaded to give them my vote. For now, with all the flaws you rightly point out, Corbyn seems to be the only game in town.

I speak more prosaically for the sake of brevity as I cannot match or disagree with your thoughtful as usual analysis and say that the Left’s job is now:

1) To take us back to the centre, even slightly left of it

2) To put the ‘social’ back into markets (unions, rights on both sides, an involved state)

3) To mobilise and coalesce a coalition of united opposition against a politics that is dominated by vested interests. To find common purpose amongst those who are currently excluded by FPTP – inclusivity and real politics based on the real complexity of social and economic society.

Agreed on points 2 – 5, but ‘taking us back to slightly left of centre’?
That suggests that we all know where ‘the centre’ is. Pre New Labour, I would have considered ‘slightly left of centre’ to be a social democratic position – and on that basis I would agree with your point. However now, with the overwhelming neo-liberal position of the main parties (PLP rather than Corbyn), the centre has been dragged ever right-wards.

Great ‘essay’ Richard, and some really good points. A few observations and areas where I might diverge:

1) We are talking about a ‘cultural shift’ here and that also means a cultural shift in the way we perceive ‘leaders.’ I sense, Richard, that you are using the media induced notion of ‘ a leader’ that is quite different from the way leaders Oersted in the past. I know you are a pragmatist and feel there is a need to adapt to that. But how is that reconcilable with a cultural shift, it then becomes a vivacious cycle: ‘we can’t get the cultural shift because in order to get the cultural shift we have to use the old culture.’ Team work is needed-think of all the personalities in ‘Old Labour’ – Benn, Shore, Crossland, Healey, Heffer, they were all BIG voices’ we need a TEAM and not a ‘corporate shyster in a suit’ style photo-shoot figure. That’s what I sense people are looking for and we need the courage to go there.

2) Labour Party history reveals a moving to the Right before Thatcher, via Gaitskell and Healey and strong monetarist leanings by the mid 70’s after the cot-push inflation of the OPEC oil price hike. Blair completed the job that was well underway. Look at Raloph Milliband’s critique of Labour in the 60’s, he knew it had not gone far enough in creating institutional change.

3) Did ‘New Labour’ deliver a message? If it did, it passed me by. By the time Brown became chancellor in 1997 the eunuch-like status of Government was almost complete, Brown’s utterances about not allowing the housing market to undermine the economy that I often quote are emblematic.

4) You say that the present leadership ‘have not got their communications together’-that is true but with Corbyn in only 9 months and a Party that largely despises him what surprise is that? I have hear that Milne is acting like a power unto himself, this might be true. But let’s be clear: LABOUR’S FAILURE TO OPPOSE ONE OF THE MOST FASCISTIC GOVERNMENTS IN RECENT HISTORY IS A CATASTROPHE. Hardly surprising their is some tension and even anger about.

5) As you know, Richard, I believe you to be wrong in supporting the call for Corbyn to go now. It is a misreading of the present crisis. he needs to stay for at least a transition period because:

a) There is no-one, absolutely no-one that could take over effectively and with credible vision of a future Labour party.

b) Corbyn ‘represents’ this need for a transition, he could certainly step down after the that but not before, in my view.

c) Corbyn represents the shift in culture that we need, and people see him as important for that reason.

d) Labour will need to rebuild from a ‘rump’ of 40 M.P’s It has done it before and can do it again. When there is a crisis of these proportions , papering over and hoping for the best will not work.

Corbyn IS getting the social justice message accross-he repeated it endlessly and it it has got stronger since the recent no-confidence vote and resignations.

I agree with Alan Simpson ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKQgYP4q0Ms) that we need a transition period THEN the delivery of a new economic paradigm. Trying to cobble together the present shower of Overton Window cowering neo-liberals will absolutely NOT work unless you want LINO and Tory-Lite as a ‘pragmatic’ result. The oils tanker of finance capitalism will take time to turn around. let’s be courageous and start that process in earnest.

I get a sense that the ‘non-listening’ was mutual between PLP and Corbyn’s ‘group.

Benn’s ghastly and stomach churning display of faux-statesmanship (I’m the real leader material) some months ago illustrated how bad things were -how could anyone get a message across under those absurd conditions?

I am baffled by this fragment; the only Oersted that I can think of offhand is a 19th Century Danish (I think) physicist whose name was at one time used for a unit measure in magnetism. That is where I encountered it in a school science class when I was about 14.

That’s fascinating…perhaps someone has done research on how typos reflect the subconscious thought patterns and reveal the inner personality…..in that case we’ve got a lot of analytical material on Richard! (smiley emoticon).

Justice is indeed the focus and rightly so. I am saddened therefore, that you choose to join the band of ‘power driven’ Blarites who wish to oust our leader. The left were (and remain) the pioneers who have sacrificed much in hard fought struggles to promote justice and root out injustice. Why then do you believe it is fair to ignore Labour Party members who have clearly identified our chosen leader? Why is it that you talk on one hand of your influence in the economic strategies in the party but on the other hand complain that the leadership are hard to reach – that sounds a tad contradictory and maybe, as a result of not have them take all of your ideas forward, your nose gets a little out of joint – it’s how this reads to me. So for the first time in decades we have a true socialist leader, a true socialist shadow chancellor – chosen by a growing left wing movement who are rapidly restoring the core values of our party. What about justice for those of us who joined the party after years of disaffection because of Blair’s Tory-lite neoliberalism and anti-Union stance (a Labour government that refused to overturn anti-Union laws brought in by Thatcher is no Labour government – at least not as I see it). The fact that JC was not driven by an ambition for leadership speaks volumes and sets him apart from the ‘power for powers sake’ careerists. The leadership are constantly developing plans – that’s why they involve people like you. They have recruited top notch economists to help us take socialism to prominence in this country and beyond. They are consulting with international socialist leaders and activists to mould their policies and build something sustainable that will benefit millions and challenge the dominant paradigm of capitalist establishment. Please reconsider your position on the leadership and join us in the real fight for justice in the world – something that JC and JM have proven by their lifelong activism for exactly that cause. Justice for the Unions (without whom there would be no Labour Party). Justice for the members (without whom there would be no Labour Party) – members who gave JC his mandate. The coup has failed and TW has backed off the unions this morning as the swinging door of the last chance saloon hits him on the way out. Get behind our elected leadership who abhor power-list and honourably convey with dignity what is wonderful about our movement. We have an opportunity of a lifetime here to bring justice to many people in a real and planned way and your article is not helping – I would go as far as to say that it is an injustice.

With the greatest of respect (by which I mean absolutely none at all) if you want to appear on my blog stop ascribing actions motives to me that are blatantly untrue

If you had bothered to read what i wrote I actually called for a leader who could deliver left wing policies – more left wing than John and Jeremy are delivering right now – but you obviously failed to notice that and instead say I took part in a coup, which is utterly and completely absurd and so wrong it is ridiculous

Jeremy is leader by default – it was his turn to stand. There is much evidence he did not want the job

I want the policies

But most of all I want them delivered

Jeremy is not going to deliver them widely – which even people like Owen Jones admit

And anyone who is going to deliver them has to command the PLP – it is impossible otherwise – and contrary to what the Labour Party stands for too (it’s aim is democratic socialism through parliamentary means)

So I suggested that a change – in a fashion that really could deliver left wing policy – was what was needed

But you say that makes me a Blairite which is exceptionally tedious of you

I suggest you get over the politics of personality and look at how to deliver the change for real people. I’d suggest that’s more important

Private Eye is reporting in its Focus On Fact – The New Old Left, that you and Owen Jones amongst others have been identified by “furious Corbynistas online” as Blairites. It seems that Jimmy is perhaps one of those.

I am disappointed by this response Richard but as gaining your respect was not my aim, I am not affected by it. I did read your piece, which could have done with an editor here and there but was, on the whole, well written. What was clear from it however was the fact that you completely miss the irony in it. It is not only unjust but it is without any plan whatsoever. Where is this new ‘more left’ leader that you speak of – a pipe dream I suggest. I was merely trying to highlight the ironic thread. ‘There are none so blind….’
Anyway….you will hopefully have noticed that I made no mention of your part in the coup – you did that in your response. I respect your opinion and know that you have an excellent talent in regard to economics and taxation in particular. That doesn’t make you right. I also at no stage said you were a Blairite. Me thinks you protesteth too much. I also didn’t at any stage make this personal – you did in your response. So feel free to toss your toys from your pram – just don’t aim them at me please.
Corbyn is currently our only chance of a socialist prime minister, in my opinion, which, whether you like it or not, is just as valid as yours.

Jimmy is wrong to ascribe such motives to you, Richard. But I suggest that he, like others on this blog have been waiting for the air of change for many years and when there is a hint of it we feel it is a very fragile hope and become highly defensive of it.

I suggest that any form of reconciliation between Corbyn’s Party supporters and the PLP is NOT possible and that the notion that the broader PLP can deliver anything but Tory-Lite with all the concomitant myths that support austerity has no foundation in reality. The PLP blew it between 2010-15 big-style and allowed the Right to prosper and that is cannot oppose/will not oppose is now beyond doubt.

In the interests of fairness, I’d like to leave you with a summary of my viewpoint:
1. I believe that Labour should concentrate on building left wing support to gain power. The pursuit of power without the left is Blairite philosophy and counter-productive.
2. I largely agree with Richard but dispute the leadership argument he puts forward. I think JC is exactly what we need and Richard says nothing to discuss that view. Who do you have in mind that will lead a left led Labour Party to number 10?
3. I don’t think Richard is a Blairite. His view that JC should stand down is in line with the Blairites asking for his removal. That isn’t the same as saying Richard is a Blairite and part of the coup. It is a statement of fact. I should have been clearer I suppose – but if you read my response more carefully you’ll see what I mean
4. I am not a furious Corbynista – I’m a happy Corbynista with hope for a better future. The ‘edge’ in this exchange came from Richard’s counter response, which I think was overly defensive and a misreading of what I said.
Things levelled at me here:
Freedom of speech: I am merely exercising my right to this too.
Misreading Richard’s piece: Quite the contrary
Being a furious Corbynista: No anger from me here. I just don’t accept that he should stand aside – I think for Richard to dismiss his ability to lead us to success, with a plan, is too hasty and simplistic…..and as their are no left leaning leaders in the wings, I assume he agrees that JC should remain. If not then I don’t understand why he should go. Even if there were candidates springing up from the left, I still think the most important aspect of all of this is democratic process. Jeremy is the members’ choice – if we bend to the PLP demands we will have lost something fundamental and that is unthinkable. The attempts to oust JC have left many party members justifiably angry. It seems democracy is winning though, which is heartening and why I’m not furious.
Finally – I think the comparison to the Fabian/Union historical divide is interesting but I’m not sure there is such a clear polarisation. There are Fabians who support Corbyn and wish to combat the division being caused in the party – so this too is a broad and simple assessment of a more complex dynamic.
People need to lick their wounds, unite behind our elected leader and stop in-fighting in such a disgraceful manner. Surely we all agree that we should be aiming our attacks on Tory policy (or lack of) by offering alternatives (ala JM). I don’t think, as Richard does, that we need a better leader than JC. There isn’t one.

If Jeremy is the best leader Labour has got then in the wider country I have to tell you there will be many people who will be deeply worried because they know a majority will not vote for a man who cannot command 80% of his parliamentary party (who have 4 years still to serve) and so know they will not get the chance this country needs at the next election

I do, not very quietly, despair at the abandonment of the interests of those Labour might serve

I have a little more hope. There are already signs that JC is gaining support (encouragingly from those disaffected by new labour who had moved to UKIP). I think it is the PLP who have lost the backing of the membership. We have the chance to influence the NEC membership soon and I am confident this will continue the necessary shift to the left in the party and in turn will herald some changes in the internal processes. Jeremy’s leadership has brought success and growth and the trajectory suggests a continuation of this. I think it’d be a mistake to seek new leadership at this stage. The change therefore needs to come from the PLP. If we get behind him we can win in 2020 or even before should the chance arise. If you compare JC’s delivery of key speeches recently to some of his earlier, less polished presentations – you will see a leader has emerged and one who has already changed politics for the better. Honest and principled as opposed to sleaze and spin. So we will have the NEC, the party leadership and the members in harmony – the PLP will eventually follow under mounting pressure. Then we become the formidable voice of the people once more. That is a Labour Party worth fighting for – not the neoliberal monster it became under Blair and Brown. Exciting times.
I apologise for the focus on this small part of your piece – but I think it an important one.

Keep up the good work comrade and don’t dwell on despair – it is hope and not despair that will help illicit change

Working class white people just won’t vote for JC. They don’t like him. I don’t mean to be critical at all. I like JC but that really isn’t the point, they wouldn’t vote for me either.. I know how he feels. I can’t bear to sing the national anthem, consider the Royal Family to be a regrettable & wholly unnecessary institution & flinch when anyone talks about being proud to be British. Fortunately, however, I’m not standing for election.
In the same way that any candidate for the US presidency must be able to feign an absolute faith in an almighty God, so any candidate to be UK Prime Minister must be able to feign a deep, patriotic, if necessary histrionic love of this country.

Anyway, the Labour Right’s putsch has ensured Jeremy won’t be leading Labour into the next election as it has become clear that he has almost no friends in his own party. It hasn’t indicated who might, since its main effect seems to have been to disqualify everyone. Ms Eagle, in particular, comes across as someone I wouldn’t trust with £5 to go down the road & get me a pack of B&H. She’d probably come back with a Mars Bar & a copy of Exchangee & Mart,

The “left wing” have been reduced to trying to revivify Ken Livingstone, who’s been touring various media outlets saying he’s Jeremy’s “friend” & I’m sure many people, particularly those Ken is most keen to denigrate & demonise, must be thinking “he’s my friend, & with a friend like this I should need enemies?”

The problem the labour party has it stems from the fact that it has ceased to represent `labour` [literally] and therefore lost its key role in a capitalist system. There is no key role in a capitalist system for an organisation that represents the interests of the economically inactive. What is very hard to see is how labour can regain its relevance by representing the interests of labour in an economic environment where labour [literally] is becoming less and less relevant.

I wish I had a positive answer however I’m pretty sure that representing the interests of the economically inactive isn’t the way back!

Hedge fund managers are certainly economically ‘active’, their activity just doesn’t help anyone.

They’re not alone in that.

I have a book of Q&As between Woodrow Wyatt, then a Labour MP although later to become an arch-Tory & father of the foul Petronella, & Bertrand Russell. Russell said his hope was that technology had reached such a level that soon we could all live the life that, in the c19th was only available to the squires; working for, at most, 20h pw & devoting the rest of our time to cultivating music, art, philosophy etc.

I think the reason we’ve clearly failed to do so is because we have deeded, absolutely, that money comes from working. If you don’t work, & don’t have wealthy parents, you’re doomed to live on barest subsistence level. Therefore, naturally, people are keen to work all the time even though, lets be honest, most of us achieve virtually nothing & don’t enjoy it. To give an example, we must, in this country, have hundreds of thousands of Estate Agents. If they all died, tomorrow, would the country notice? The same applies, lets be honest, to about half the people in the Public Sector &, I’d say, about 80% of the private sector. If those people, who aren’t say teachers or doctors or police officers or builders or farmers stopped doing what they were doing, would anyone notice?

We’ve fallen into this insane treadmill society where politicians & the press laud people for being “hard working” as though that, in itself, was a positive.

J S Bach worked incessantly playing, composing, arranging & as a result he made the world a better place. Bruce Springsteen has worked incessantly playing, composing, arranging & as a result has made the world a worse place, at least for those of us with taste.

‘We’ve fallen into this insane treadmill society where politicians & the press laud people for being “hard working” as though that, in itself, was a positive.’

Agreed -anyway what constitutes ‘hard work’ is questionable. It’s clear that a vast number of jobs don’t need to be done; people are corralled into them to avoid societies punitive measures. So if it means working in a factory producing crap (China?) and getting treated like shit, that’s what happens.

Marx thought that people need time to develop themselves, to expand awareness and learn about the forces that shape their lives. The treadmill denies that.

The problem the labour party has stems from the fact that it has ceased to represent `labour` [literally] and therefore lost its key role in a capitalist system. There is no key role in a capitalist system for an organisation that represents the interests of the economically inactive. What is very hard to see is how labour can regain its relevance by representing the interests of labour in an economic environment where labour [literally] is becoming less and less relevant.

I wish I had a positive answer however I’m pretty sure that representing the interests of the economically inactive isn’t the way back!

well yes, but trying to get agreement on what is justice won’t be easy. is it justice to tax the working poor to pay tax credits to the working poorer. is it justice to do this while the shareholders and CEOs who employ the working poor line their own pockets with remuneration underpinned by those tax credits? and that’s before you come to consider taxing the working poor to pay non-contributory benefits to the idle.

I know others will cite the idle rich [rentiers and money lenders] in response. but the working poor don’t live side by side with the idle rich and can’t as easily see how the idle rich are ripping them off. so answers that avoid dealing with the idle poor will get the progressive centre/left nowhere.

These are the points that Labour can’t seem to get across. I thought Ed Milliband had it in him to do so but he was never given time to play himself in before the PLP buffoons ran him out;
Q Why do we have to pay benefits to migrants?
A The benefits are “working family” benefits & it would be contrary to EU rules not to pay them.
Q So why can people come over here & get benefits?
A They only get benefits if they are working, so the Preess’ idea of scroungers coming here is absurd
Q So why don’t they pay them benefits in Germany?
A The Germans don’t have working family benefits
Q Why don’t the Germans have working family benefits?
A Because they have strong trade unions & affordable housing, The germans, therefore, cannot conceive of a situation whereby someone could go out to work 40 hours a week & be left unable to afford to house or feed hs family. It would make no sense to them.

yes erigenus, but what we can’t have is a refusal to realign non-contributory benefit entitlements to a fraction of contributory benefits entitlements until all the points you list have been addressed.

Richard, you say the Lib Dems have/had no positive vision of what they are/were for and this led to their downfall and that “there is now a real chance Labour is now heading the same way, and there is no clear indication that it understands this”.

However, there is at least one person in Labour who does understand this, and who a few days ago said pretty much exactly the same thing as you are saying here – Clive Lewis, at the Compass event about a progressive alliance you mentioned on your blog. If you haven’t seen/read what he said there it’s spooky how similar what you are saying is to what he said – you say the PLP embraced managerialism and lacks vision like other parties, he talked about how a technocratic, managerialist, focus-group led Labour has lost its vision and lost out to parties with a vision.

Like you he says the problem isn’t just about Corbyn vs. the PLP but goes much deeper, about its relationship with its voters, and the solution is not about Labour moving left or right, as either will lose some potential voters – what Labour needs a “vision”, like recent successful parties (Greens, UKIP, the SNP). He talks about how Labour in its early decades had a vision, behind the individual practical policies like more schools and hospitals, a vision about giving to ordinary working people a sense that they are worthy of the same honour as the rich and powerful (similar in some ways to some things you say about justice). He says the vision needs to include genuinely giving people more power (more democracy) rather than vacuous words about listening to the voters, and that to does this it needs to embrace PR. So your one word is Justice, his is Democracy.

This Independent article from yesterday gives some quotes for some of the key points

Simon – thanks for the link to the event on YouTube, which I have just watched and equally recommend. As mentioned, Clive Lewis came across well – speaking coherently and articulately. Maybe he could play a more important role in sorting out the PLP, although I’d guess he’s very active behind the scenes. John Harris is such a good journalist and presenter. There must be role for someone with his communication skills. And Caroline Lucas is always worth listening to. In fact I thought all the speakers made positive and encouraging contributions, offering some things to build upon. I was a little disappointed that there wasn’t more emphasis on the need for radical anti-austerity economics to underpin any political co-operation, without which it’s all a pipe-dream. Pity Steve Keen, or someone like Neil Wilson, wasn’t invited to explain. Most of the issues rightfully bugging a large percentage of the disenfranchised who voted to leave could and should have been resolved by any UK government during the past 40 years – and had little to do with the EU per se. But that message did not feature prominantly (if at all) in the referendum debate.

How and why the Labour Party got to where it is today is a subject of well documented history, with many good points made above. The focus now has to be for the next generation. A priority tactical decision will have be made – to take a short-term view in order to attempt to win the next election, which will necessitate compromises between the pro & anti JC groups that I suspect will be difficult to achieve. Or else take a longer-term view encompassing policies that may not have immediate popular electoral appeal but which are truly progressive, especially with regard to socio-economic and foreign policy.

I applaud the recent news that Dr. Jill Stein has reached out to Bernie Sanders, offering him the Green Party candidacy for the Presedential election, so together they can reach 15 percent in national polling that would enable her to stand alongside Clinton and Trump in televised election debates. That’s the kind of bold initiative we need. Given time, such a coalition would be better able to unify around a progressive manifesto offering sustainable solutions to the major threats to the quality of life for the 99%. Being on the right side of history is not always an election winning strategy. The problem we have here in the UK is the degree to which Neo-liberalism has become entrenched in the policies of the main parties and in the sub-conscious of the electorate, and which will be further reinforced for the next 4 years by either May or Leadsomand their cohorts. This presents more of a tactical dilemma to the English progressive parties.

Paul, of course there’s always a risk in taking bold initiatives to move out of a political quagmire. But how else can a new radical agenda be presented to the electorate? The US is in a worse sitauation than we are, with the horrendous amounts of money being thrown at the main candidates. Privately funded political advertising is a major feature of their campaign strategies, especially tv. Progressive parties simply don’t get a public hearing with the result that the only choice is between a right-wing Democrat or a libertarian Republican, neither of whom are fit to be POTUS. How do you suggest Sanders or Stein otherwise get a fair hearing as an alternative to either of the main (corrupt) candidates?

I appreciate that Ralph Nader was accused of splitting the vote for Gore in 2000 and letting Bush in via Florida. It’s a debate that still rumbles on, with counter-analyses from all sides. But I still don’t know how else to break such an entrenched polical duopoly that doesn’t deliver progressive policies for the majority. Not an easy problem to resolve, either here or across the Pond.

Very good plan and clever to focus on Justice.
The right has ‘freedom’, which is difficult for the left to disagree with.
If the right now has to disagree with Justice, then that is likely to be even more difficult for them!

I don’t disagree with much of your blog. However, you have failed to recognise that Jeremy has not been given the opportunity and time to develop his style of “Leadership” he was being attacked before he took his post and that had become incessant, with members of his shadow cabinet briefing against him. However, within that constraint he has done a marvellous job with so many achievements in that short space of time. Given that he is anti-war (his stance supported by the Chilcot report), anti-austerity and for nationalisation of key social structures and for a just Palestinian settlement, there are external agencies destabilising his leadership and the PLP have been enlisted to do that job with Campbell & Blair behind this.
To note Blair is on record to have said he will prefer a Tory Government if Jeremy is Leader of Labour Party. I wonder why?

I believe given time and effective support Jeremy would be the Leader the Labour movement have been waiting for a long time. Let us not lose that once in a life time opportunity.

I believe that the problem with the Labour Party lies in the original Clause 4 phrase: “common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange”. No one properly defined what ‘common ownership’ meant and it has been interpreted as ‘nationalisation’. This was probably not the intention of the authors. Removing this phrase entirely has resulted in a wishy-washy nonsense, indistinguishable from anything which the tory party would embrace.

I would prefer the principle that land and capital should be owned by those that use them, either to produce or consume, recognising the fact that labour is the only active, warm blooded factor of production and, therefore, the only factor to earn its return (wages). Profit/interest and rent are both economic rent. Capitalism is the opposite of this and is the source of growing inequality – it’s just money making money.

Jeremy Corbyn and his PLP allies stand for these principles, which is why they are being attacked from all sides. The 1945 and 1983 manifestos, on examination, are far nearer to what we need now than anything which has been proposed since.

Agree entirely Carol. of course Corbyn has offered a vision of nationalisation along co-operative lines. The PLP has not vociferously taken this up and fleshed it out, that should have happened instead of the appalling national displacement activity which was the referendum.

The phrase “common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange”, should be attributed to Sidney Webb; it was part of a manifesto that he wrote in 1917 for the Labour Party. Rightly, the writer complains that “common ownership” was not defined precisely, but taken to mean nationalisation. This, though, is not the only interpretation possible – the State can be the major shareholder in an enterprise with the State’s share of the profits returning to the public purse. An example of such an organisation actually existed before Webb wrote his piece.

In 1911 a company was set up with State funds with the express purpose of providing the Royal Navy with a source of oil for the Fleet. At the time, the ships of the Fleet was coal-fired and Admiral Fisher – Jacky Fisher, the “oil maniac” – was the driving force for change. Te First Sea Lord who backed him and appropriated the funds for the company was none other than Winston Churchill! The company was initially known as the Anglo-Persian, later Anglo-Iranian and eventually British Petroleum. The State holding in BP was initially 51%, later reduced in the Seventies to 49%. The State nominated two Directors to sit on the Board; this situation obtained for all of the time. Margaret Thatcher reduced the State holding still further; but she did not sell all of it off.

I believe that the Attlee Government of 45-50 latterly adopted this strategy rather than outright nationalisation for some of its actions but I am open to correction on this point.

I do feel though that this strategy should be revived as part of Labour’s Election Manifesto with emphasis on the mixed-ownership side: if nothing else it would reduce the odious connotations associated with nationalisation, to say nothing of the implications “bureaucracy” etc.

I have learnt so much from your blog and your books Richard, I thank you for that and I think very highly of you. I have no intention of arguing with you over the leadership of the Labour Party. At 72 and a lifelong LP supporter/member (apart from 16 years in Ireland) I have been inspired by Jeremy Corbyn as have most of my friends and I understand how Jeremy has brought hope to those that the LP left behind. Jeremy made it on to the BBC news website today with part of his Durham Miners Gala speech http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36754892 I think this is what inspires so many to support him. I can’t predict the future for him or the LP but I do know that at this point in time he has given many of us an injection of hope at a time of huge difficulty. I cannot express how depressing I find the current Labour Leadership debacle and I am angry that 172 Labour MPs are happy to discount the views of so many members. I have heard nothing from any of them that inspires me and there are a number I suspect that are still wedded to austerity. They are part of a LP that lost 2 elections and a whole country. I trust Jeremys honesty and his integrity and that of his team however small it is and I like his vision of the future for everyone but particularly for the young. I believe he deserves a chance and he has my support. It is a very long time since I have trusted a politician either in the UK or Ireland.

Well, if the party splits, which , in my view it should do then he ‘will have moved in some way’. Papering over a crisis of these dimensions is not an option.

In my CLP meeting last night there were a clear majority (c. 80%) who support Corbyn remaining and many who would entertain a split and I’m in Gloucestershire, hardly a hot bed of inner-city radicalism! Though the CLP Chairman was closer to your view Richard.

Richard, will you at least a accept that it is possible Corbyn could win an election? He has been written off so many times and confounded his critics continually that he deserves the right to lead labour into an election. This is not a crisis of his making and he has shown great leadership these last 2 weeks when many have lost their heads.

@Richard. “… but I am not sure Labour could anyway do more than that”. Precisely. Who can tell what will happen by 2020? Attitudes can change dramatically. Labour needs to have a couple of potential successors in train, like all well-run businesses. Some of the newer MPs are impressive but need time. Fortunately we at present have a leader who is strong, principled and not encumbered by young dependants.

The big problem is Richard that if Corbyn goes it is a victory for what exactly?

What will we get instead? It can only be more Blairite approaches to policy. Eagle does not impress me at all. Are you telling me that she is electable as a prime minister? And in an age of austerity she will buy more nuclear weapons and not repeal the bedroom tax? Where was Eagle during the EU campaign? I didn’t see her. I saw less of her than Corbyn.

Also it would a victory in the end for those in the PLP who rejected Corbyn to begin with. The PLP should have challenged his election then – not now when the country needs an opposition and where a united Labour party could have taken the Tories to the cleaners. The fact they do it now is sign of weakness in my view but also indicates the rank opportunism of the Blairite kind that permeates the PLP as well as its remoteness from real people. In addition it displays a lack of strategic thinking in the party for which I’m afraid it is becoming known for. And it is.

The poor old Labour party – in the hands of a bunch of chancers and opportunists who are basically just mostly Tories with a bit of a conscience, rejected by the Tory party for not being nasty or even clever enough to be members.

But look how slick the Tory machine is already even though the Leadsom/May race has turned a bit nasty?

I saw nothing of May during the EU referendum campaign either but no-one seems to mention that about our (their) next Prime Minister.

And to look at how shoddy this has been, the PLP’s first excuse was to heap blame on Corbyn for BREXIT and use that as the supposed ‘trigger’ for the leadership challenge. Yet the Labour vote for ‘in’ was quite robust given all the mendacity of the out campaign. That contrived act alone convinces me that I should reject the challenge of Corbyn’s leadership because it smacks of something rather underhand.

In conclusion however, I cannot believe what a poorly governed country we are. On one hand we have a bunch of Tories who do not believe in Government ‘in Government’ and on the other have we have a Labour party that does not really believe in democracy (it certainly does not believe in people anymore) and thinks it as a party (the PLP in particular) still knows better. For what is meant to be one of the oldest democracies around, it is quite shocking.

It seems like very man for himself is the order of the day in post modern feudal Britain.

I agree with your analysis Richard, and think the word justice encapsulates excellently what is needed, and needs a political party to be delivered.

But what is justice?

While you have done justice to justice by indicating many of its attributes and pointing out different areas of concern, I suggest its implications are so far reaching that we can only begin to take a stand at implementing them all.

Tax justice is an important example, and it is good that we hear a lot about it on this blog.

Social justice is another important case about ensuring dignity and freedom.

But what about international justice? Tony Blair may have argued that he was bringing a cruel dictator to justice by invading Iraq, but there has been no justice for the families of soldiers who died in the war.

And then there are grey areas where justice is not clearly defined, because what is just for some may be outlawed for others, by their religion for example. Legality and morality are not generally coincident enterprises, and if we start to make arbitrary decisions, where is the justice in the matter? As you say, justice respects polarity, but seeks to embrace it in a totality. But precisely what that means, what the totality is, needs to be spelled out.

And that, I suggest, is also the job of the left.

To take a practical example, abortion. What is the just position that the left should hold on this issue? There are people with strong feelings in either camp for or against its legalisation. Should the left take one of the sides in the debate? To say everyone can make up their own mind is a cop out, because as a society, we need to define our position. What would justice say?

The reason I mention abortion is, not because I have particular strong feelings of my own, but because it is, literally, a question of life or death, and hence it is important we can have a mature political debate. So my answer is twofold. Firstly, our precise legislation on the allowances and limits of abortion need to be settled by a democratic process. But secondly, that democratic process needs to be guided by mature judgement, not blind feelings. A democratic decision is not an infallible decision, and justice demands that we recognise that limitation.

The result of a recent referendum springs to mind.

So it is the job of the left to guide, educate and nurture the maturity of judgement required to ensure that democracy delivers true justice for all.

How?

There is no easy formula. But it requires effort, persistence, maturity, and unity around a leader.

I accept that you can only make the contribution of one man, however significant that may be, which is why it is important for others to continue the dialogue and build on the foundation you have laid.

My point about justice is that it is so vast and wide, that none of us can live up to its full demands and expectations. It is even more than a life’s work, it is a great collaborative enterprise of humankind.

But once we accept that fundamental point, it should lead us to see the world in a different perspective. What matters is not so much our time and ability to discuss justice, as the will to deliver it. I suggest that your work in economics and ways of transforming our society through tax have their origin in your pure desire for justice, to change the world for the better. Your ideas, profound and deep as they are, are secondary to their source and origin: you.

I think that is why the left is struggling with its self-identity. It’s not about finding the right combination of words that will resonate with the public and command their allegiance. It’s not even about finding the right leadership personality, although such things are indeed very important, and we need a sensible debate around the matter. Fundamentally, it is about meeting a need which is greater than we can express, more demanding than we can achieve, more important than we can ignore.

As you put it in a nutshell, justice.

Now the million pound question is, how do we deliver the kind of justice we need in today’s society? In your spirit of pragmatism, I suggest it is through the democratic political process. But recognising the limits of the democratic process to make the right decisions, I suggest we need more. We need a new kind of politics that will engage and inspire people in the pursuit of justice, to expose the corruption and injustices that occur, to hold accountable those who hold public office, to promote the kind of rational debate that will help people make the right decisions, for their own benefit, for future generations and for the common good.

If I were to add one word to yours on what the left stands for, it would be democracy. Democratic justice.

(I retract my earlier comments about the insufficiency of the democratic process. I overlooked that democracy contains its own correction through the use of mature debate, as long as one looks beyond the outcome of individual elections or referenda.)

Might I suggest this offers a way out of Labour’s current leadership impasse?

While I agree with Richard’s sentiments on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership capabilities (or lack of them), my concern is what happens if he turns out to be a stubborn old man the PLP can’t get rid of.

If the Tories represent the interests of wealth, then it is their prerogative to remove a weak leader they feel is incapable or not delivering. So Michael Gove can quite happily say about his friend Boris that he is not fitted for a leadership role, and propose himself instead. I don’t think Gove seriously wanted to rule the country. He wanted to prod the Labour MP’s to try the same with regard to Corbyn.

But if the left is to represent the interests of justice, and particularly democratic justice, then it is a matter of principle that they resolve their leadership issues on those lines. A party which cannot govern itself will not be able to govern the country.

That means that if Corbyn survives a leadership challenge, or whoever may win in his place, the party will be bound to unite around their democratically selected leader. It does not mean that all debate is stifled. If he continues, Corbyn can still be persuaded to stand down at the right time, but the people who voted for him cannot be ignored.

On the point of communication and messaging, there is only one required. It is that the Tories are responsible for the present crisis, and they are the ones who must be made to answer for the present situation, and the likely breakup of the EU and the U.K.

I think David Cameron has got off far too lightly.

He it was who promised a referendum on Europe to appease sections of his party, putting his own interests before the interests of the country.

He it was who negotiated a light touch deal with Europe, not getting at the critical inertia on the issue of migration, and failing to secure the support of his allies Johnson and Gove who led the campaign of lies against him.

He it was who fought the referendum to stay in but without the vision and conviction to secure the necessary support. He used all the machinery of government, but that machinery is the biggest objection most people have to Europe. He pleaded for economic security, but we don’t need any lessons on that from him and his austerity government. He shared platforms with members of other political parties, but people still remember his comments during the Mayor of London race. No wonder people were fed up and ready to seize any opportunity to shout, enough!

It doesn’t take a genius to work out what the party line should be, and hold the Tories’ feet to the fire for their gross incompetence and mismanagement.

I plead for the left to resolve their issues around the democratic process, and unite behind their leader.

On the contrary, none but a few understand what ‘justice’ is but every human being is born with an acute sense of fairness. Small children know who has been treated fairly in any given circumstance; animals with more than a small sized brain recognise unfairness in their treatment; every human knows whether they have been injured or helped by the actions of others. This is core wiring in human beings.

According to the democratic font of all online knowledge (wikipedia, accepting all of its weaknesses it is always a good starting point):

“Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered”

From which I take this sentence to mean the underlying human concept is fairness and the (theoretical or practical) mechanism to try to achieve this concept is via justice.

But as we all know in reality justice is far to easily manipulated by power and money, perhaps fairness is the more easily understood and agreed upon single word to describe the concept people can easily recognise and agree with (if a single word is required).

Personally, I would be happier if the Labour party could just stick to what they have currently agreed upon as their aims, values and purpose in their 2013 rule book (or agree to change it to something else if this is not actually what the party and/or the PLP aim to achieve).

As a non-Labour party member (or any other party member) but as a keen observer and supporter of democracy, I look forward to the fact that it now seems there will at last be a proper leadership re-election process in which all the contenders can lay out their vision, policies and leadership credentials (yet again).

However, as I expect the PLP will still be seeking every possible way (legal or otherwise) to keep Corbyn out of the election process (or anyone else with similar policies, which in my view is still what this is all about) then I am not convinced that the party membership will get a chance to vote for a real “Justice Candidate” because none will be forthcoming.

But I look forward to being proven wrong and the Parliamentary Labour party returning to its roots and delivering on its commitment to democratic socialism (after first all agreeing on what they actually mean by it). If they can actually agree on a direction of travel, then perhaps a new candidate could lead them to victory in the next election.

If not they are in the political wilderness for a very long time in my view and the unions should quite rightly take their money and influence elsewhere and start afresh. There is clearly a growing grassroots movement that has emerged from the ashes of top down New Labour and which resembles much more of the Old Labour bottom up socialism that I and many others thought the Labour Party always stood for.

It will be Labour’s NEC which will decide. You should know that there is a move to stop one Corbyn-supporting member taking up his position (caused by Ken Livingstone’s exit). This is going to be a very ugly battle.

This has been a good conversation to follow and I agree with much of what you say, Richard, particularly about ‘justice’ forming a clear platform for vision and policy. Like other contributors, however, I do not agree with you about Jeremy as leader and it is interesting that you do not identify any candidates that might fulfil the criteria you suggest : perhaps you are being diplomatic ? I fear that what you are saying about the leadership may be correct in theory, but the absence of someone who can fulfil the role you describe seems glaring to me – and one of the reasons is that the chasm between the New Labour ‘old guard’ on the PLP and the energy and optimism animated by JC’s election is – at least for now – unbridgeable.

If that is the case, it is essential that JC continues to lead during this period when the split in the party is either going to be accommodated or become terminal ( you note I do not say ‘heal’ I consider that most improbable. JC’s leadership style may not be ideal for leading a government, but it may be well suited to recreating the vision, energy and purpose of a party to champion the vision you describe, to fashioning new alliances and coalitions and to developing evonomic and social policies capable of transforming the neo-liberal hegemony in a way that meets mid twenty first century needs.

My own view is that a split in the party is now necessary and both factions should be persuaded to engineer it in a positive move that recognises differences, respects their evolution from a common source. Unlikeky, I know : 9 out of 10 divorces are bitter and contested. Essential now to re-shape politics and structures so that those of us who are optimistic about evolving an alternative to the status quo can get on with it.

Yes – this makes sense – my worry is that if Corbyn goes the elements that could deliver justice – a vision of it rather like that of John Smith – could go with him.

That is why I am against a leadership change now. I cannot think of any contemporary figure in the Labour party who would be a good leader concerning the concept of justice except the one they have now unless of course the Shadow Chancellor puts his name in the ring too.

At the last CLP meeting I attended I was less than impressed to find my local London party comprises two main camps. Militant-lite and those in reasonably pensioned public service or union jobs. The former comes across as angry and strident lacking any grasp that if they got elected they would have to represent anyone but themselves. The latter at core just seem happy to keep the status quo and their jobs. Neither group has anything to say to those ‘labour’ voters who voted leave and may well be tempted to vote UKIP in future local/national votes.

So who represents me in politics, I am not sure. We could all do a pick and mix but then it would be in never land and no decisions made.
I consider I am left, but do not think the right leader is in place, has to be able to carry and embrace more than the ardent followers he has.
Obviously that is my view, but it is the view of many others also. There won’t be perfection but there will be more consensus if a change is made I think John F Kennedy saying ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country embraces the right concept. Above all a more equal society is needed, not a simple matter to achieve. Those with wealth especially land, which should belong to us all have the might and power to challenge any interloper. Well for starters, the Garden Bridge is an example of the complete disregard of what is important. The damnable bedroom tax should be given short shrift. Immigration has to be addressed in a fair way, has to be managed. Invest in our young with education, trades or academia. Don’t expect something for nothing. But, give the very best to the vulnerable, those who are chronically ill, nursery education in people’s workplaces for those who have to leave their little ones. The upkeep of the perishing garden bridge would fund some of it. Miss Lumley, how can you justify such a folly.

‘… it was during the Blair years that Labour forgot what it was for.’ No. The Blair government set ambitious targets in the fields of health care, education, worklessness and children’s early years – and achieved most of them. A good summary (from John Hills, Professor of Social Policy and director of the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at LSE ) of the facts and figures here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/alumni/LSEConnect/articlesWinter2013/whatDidLabourReallyDoForUs.aspx

Are you really saying that there is no connection between traditional Labour values and wanting to improve health care, education, worklessness and children’s early years? Alternatively, try this: has there ever been a Government which didn’t legislate on the basis of winning support, even if that was the support of some small but powerful clique? It seems me to me that the enormity of Blair’s malfeasance in Iraq has poisoned objective and fair assessment of the Blair government overall.

Richard, I don’t agree with the idea of using a single word and think Justice would be a poor choice. It conjures up too much of an authoritarian, hang them high, type image for my taste. As you know I’m a fan of your underlying meme of people led policy/solution. If you were to suggest a pair of words to fill the gap, namely Social Justice, I feel that would be more reflective.

Where in all this are the genuinely radical policy initiatives? – a land tax, a swingeing tax on unearned income and all other forms of rent-seeking and wealth-extraction via extortion, fundamental monetary and banking reform, re-balancing of the economy back towards where the finance sector comprises only that proportion which matches its actual productive input, massive public investment in productive industry and (especially) in education …(I could go on). In a phrase, the rolling-back of everything neoliberalism stands for.

One of TB’s legacies was to create a New Labour Party in Parliament. As Peter Wilby states in his excellent NS assessment, Blair had little interest in or time for the party membership – he made a point of opposing the issues which motivated the majority of the members whose numbers he was happy to see dwindle. Instead of a mass membership party he sought to create an elite of MPs who would support his agenda of “modernising” the public services, supporting the Financial Sector of the economy (whom he hoped would replace the unions as a source of party funding) and mitigating the excesses of neoliberalism through increased social spending. The vehicle for supplying the Blairite legacy in Parliament was Progress which ran programmes for potential candidates and used its influence to ensure they were chosen by the hollowed-out, compliant local party leaders.
Faced with a resurgent membership that demands progressive policies and rejection of neoliberal economics, the Blairites have mounted a campaign in the media to denigrate the members’ chosen leader and have persuaded many unaligned MPs that Jeremy Corbyn cannot win an election and therefore needs to be ditched. That may, or may not be true, but the real issue is the agenda that you have laid out in your essay. What dies the left stand for – neoliberalism lite or genuine social democracy. If Corbyn is overthrown, the heirs of Blair will be vindicated and the Labour Party itself will wither away.

You are ignoring the reality of the Corbyn management of the LPL – which has been dire

I entirely accept that some were plotting against Jeremy

BUT many more were perfectly capable of making up their own minds that they could not work with a party leadership that has no idea how to lead in parliament – which does matter

I want the left to win – dammit I am supposedly the author of Corbynomics – and am happy to be so – but if JC cannot manage the PLP – and I have seen the difficulty many really faced – then someone else has to do so with him and John in the team

Please be realistic and accept most of the PLP were willing to work with JC

‘Please be realistic and accept most of the PLP were willing to work with JC’

Come off it Richard, please correct me if I’m wrong but I cannot remember many Labour M.P’s supporting those policies that Corbyn talked about in any open and meaningful way or with any degree of real enthusiasm.

The we had the Benn ‘bullshit-faux-statesman act’.

The we had: ‘If you step down, we might, just MIGHT, take on some of your policies…perhpas…maybe…oh I dunno….’

1) Why weren’t fresh policy initiatives announced?
2) Why wasn’t Green QE announced boldly with accompanying documents?
3) Why did we not witness a new drive to challenge the present economic norms?
4) Why did we not see Corbyn’s ideas about co-operative style nationalisation put forward with clarity and with a confident voice.

let’s examine your definition of ‘working with him’-all it amounted to was we’ll sit in the same room and look like a Party together.

The notion you put forward that this was because of an inability to work together on one side whilst the rest were offering open minds and flexibility on policy development I find hard to accept -if that makes me an ‘enemy of truth’ then I need more evidence that convinces me I have it wrong.

I agree with you Richard – totally – but I cannot see (where I am – not as close to this as you when you rub shoulders with policy makers) any progressive alternatives coming from within the PLP – or outside of it to be honest.

There is nothing compelling at all. Has anyone in the party opposing Corbyn mentioned ‘justice?

I detect a vacuum whose motor lies in the Blairite faction – that is to say that the only way to get power for them is to copy the Tories. That remains a real possibility. And what if this is all a part of Establishment coup aimed at nullifying the real Left? That in actual fact there is a consensus between Labour and the Tories for less government, more markets etc?

A message can be conveyed many ways; a person who seeks to represent a mass of people who are considered ‘outside the establishment’ will always have their message obfuscated and quashed if those people only use the methods of the establishment to convey that message, who only seek to power via the establishment. That’s why parliament has now become a group of beings fighting over how best to serve the same factor, known post 2011 as ‘the 1%’. That has happened throughout most of parliament’s history. Brexit and the Chicken Coup show that the gulf between parliament and the people, the terminal abyss that became evident after 2008, is now trying to save itself from disappearing into the oblivion of its own creation. To that end the parliamentary Labour party has achieved its purpose along with the rest of the establishment. People who seek representation from Jeremy Corbyn have tried to use establishment’s lie of democracy to have multiple voices from across society heard; the establishment has drowned them. So it does not behove someone who advised from one sole point of view to urge a representative, who has been elected using the nearest thing to democracy we have at present, to step aside simply because the message they thought should be put across was not put across because the message was being played through the medium of the establishment without recourse to the people. In other words, the tools of the state – religion, parliament, corporations, media i.e Capital – do not present a competent democracy to people. It is not in their interest to do so. Like a microbe feasting on excrement, they are not even aware of their ignorance or that they are reliant on excrement to survive. In order for any message that will fight that to be heard, we have to create a competent democratic structure; we have precedents for how to achieve this message. The UKUncut phenomenon for example, taking a message – much of it your message- to the people, giving them information previously hidden from them, making up their own minds about the validity of the message through reflection on their own reality. It worked quickly in changing opinion on the nature of Capital and usurped the messaging media of Capital to achieve that. The only way that the people’s voice will be heard is for people who have ideas and messages to be heard, to back the people in a competent democracy; when that is done and people see the contrast with what they have been offered over generations they will abondon the abusiveness of the past. Jeremy Corbyn will no doubt be touring the country soon Richard, taking to the streets with the people; could you join him to do the same? In the only way that true social change has only ever come about in the past, could you take your message to the people, present them with ideas so that we can spread them to society, our circle of friends, colleagues, neighbours and family so that message then becomes society’s message, part of our life’s repertoire? To create a unstoppable force of inertia that pushes against the force that damages and kills the world?

not at all: These people , by a ‘sin of gross omission’ let the most vulnerable in our society down BIG TIME. I’m saying that one persons’ generic rudeness is another’s just response.

They weren’t on my side when I needed them, do I have good reason to believe they will ‘be on my side now.’?

I’m suggesting that’s profoundly unlikely unless the mass Overton Window crouchers have perceived a shift in said window opening. I can’t see it, sense it, feel it, indeed, non of my faculties can detect it. Perhaps it can be detected with the aid of scientific equipment?

Richard, the firestorm of shit that the Tories unleashed on people in already vulnerable situation touched some of us out here, including me, turning our already difficult lives upside down whilst simultaneously positioning us as social pariahs.

Labour failed to challenge this coherently and vociferously and DID NOT even offer the vaguest of challenges to the grotesque myths the Tories were propagating; you know this;I know this; many involved in this blog know this-and yet, you suggest that, somehow, we need these people on our side, so had better not offend them!!!!!!!

All I every heard out of Labour during 2010-2015 at best were the merest milksops-with the odd M.P (Skinner, Corbyn) offering anything of real strength.

I don’t want the return of neo-liberal lite, of LINO. You may find it ‘pragmatic’ to do so, I no longer do. Nor do I find begging for crumbs from the neo-liberal table either edifying or of spiritual value.

Well, I’m prepared to wait and see. If Corbyn goes, I will not tear up my card immediately but if there is no sign of significant change quickly announced then that’s it for me, the card gets the bog-flush treatment.

The it will be a case of ‘fighting’ from the sidelines. I suspect, if Corbyn goes, the monumental anger will fill Parliament square to bursting -I would even try to get there myself with my health issues!

I used that term as it is one that is popular amongst those who can see the ‘coup’ as something undemocratic. My optimism swings between hope and despair Richard. I have used communication techniques gleaned from my time in media planning to spread the message via UKUncut; it worked in getting to people’s conscience, which is the essential task of any message. Do you remember I got your message to the Occupy national conference in Sheffield in 2012? That was at a derelict building, rigged up to the wi-fi from John Lewis next door via a mobile phone by a team of about two technical people (one of them something of a ‘genius’ admittedly). Over two hundred people heard your message then. That could be replicated nationally with some effort and imagination. Anything is possible with some effort and imagination.

The rudeness might be years of frustration coming out. Hopefully we can be friends. Care on the message has to be taken; it depends on whether we want to popularise a message that is based on the will of the people or bend the will of the people to the message. We can give people information and an alternative to what they are forced to hear every day. How people interpret and spread that message throughout society will vary from one to another.

I feel that calling for the resignation of someone who has the overwhelming support of the CLP, the unions that founded the party and a huge number of people who vote Labour could alienate many people from the message along the way.

I do look beyond my bubble; my subject position in life stems from 44 years of exposure of what I want the world rid of. Everything I share on social media reflects my experience and history in ‘real’ life. Social media is a mere bubble and only reflects what people are exposed to in their life outside it. If we have an establishment that presents a certain sort of person as a ‘leader’, that seeks to quash dissent, presents the rational as the ‘radical’, and the extreme as the ‘norm’ then that will be reflected on social media by many people. With the world controlled by a certain mindset, people’s mindsets will often only reflect that mindset; the establishment tends to use people as something from which they bounce the establishment reality, then use those reflections to say ‘this is public opinion; we’ve presented people with our truth and it is now their truth. Make it so.’ The first and original form of social media is human interaction, talking to people and meeting people. In my part of the world there is justifiable outrage over what the establishment are doing, including this latest episode with the ‘coup’. We do not have competent democracy, i.e. a situation where people are presented with as many truths and perspectives as possible, from as rational a perspective as possible without undue and disproportionate influence, so we can make rational decisions on humanity. One of my social media followers posted this: “With Friends Like These…

There’s plenty of justifiable criticism to be made of Corbyn, from those of us to his left, and most of it in terms of his actual politics, rather than the manufactured trash regarding his appearance, style and lack of ‘leadership qualities.’

Almost every back-stabber and turncoat (waves at Owen Jones) – as well as his outright enemies – has praised Corbyn as a man of principle and integrity while bemoaning his lack of leadership abilities. As pointed out by someone earlier today, what exactly do you consider leadership qualities to be, if not principle and integrity?

Again, I could spend a week criticising Jezza’s politics and not run out of things to say but when I hear “ah but he just couldn’t win a general election; he just isn’t a leader” well, that tells me absolutely nothing about him and everything about *you*

It tells me that you’re an unthinking swallower of the media consensus; that a slick suit and superficial charm are what you think makes a leader; that you are happy to let your political enemies tell you what and how your leader should be.

You whine and you moan about spivs, con-men and liars; remote, privileged toffs who know nothing of us; who care nothing about how we live and how we die. You turn from your TV in disgust at the fiddling, the corruption and the sheer unmitigated self-interest and greed. You *yearn* for an honest man. You pray for a champion who will restore your party to its mythical former proletarian glory. You want socialism! Or say you do. And then comes Corbyn…

A man whose cumulative parliamentary expenses for the last hundred years amount to fifty pence, a Refresher and a packet of crisps. A man who lives in a normal house, on a normal street, and whose front garden gives an alibi to working class men all over the country: “It’ll be all right for another week, love. I mean, you seen Jezza’s?” You’ve finally got your champion; you’ve got a leader who understands your life, lives your life and even looks like the kindly teacher we all had. And yet you moan because he dresses like a normal geezer. You bitch because he doesn’t wear a tie. You take the piss out of his allotment and you sneer at his bike.

Because the media do.
Because the established political class do.
And you swallow it.

You’re too stupid, you’re too blinded by establishment propaganda to recognise normal when it passes you on the street! This is your ordinary bloke – not in it for himself – that you always claimed you wanted. But you complain because he doesn’t dress, speak and act like those you claimed to despise. You fool.

And now they’re doing him in. They’re queuing up to stick in the blade. His own MPs – the careerist chancers you were bitching about just last week – are now, suddenly, an infallible barometer of the electoral mood? Sod you. You’ve bottled it. A shiver scuttled around Corbyn’s ‘friends’ looking for a spine to run down, eh?

And what did you expect anyway? A *socialist* of some sort finally leads the Labour Party and you thought, what? That The S*n would scatter rose petals down his garden path? That he and Dave would chuckle amiably together as they exchanged matey bantz across the dispatch box? That it’d be *easy*??

Let me tell you, in all seriousness, as someone who knows more than a little about conflict – when they come for you like this, when they hate you like this, you’re doing something *right.*

It isn’t people like Corbyn who lose you elections; it’s people like *you.*

Now, grow a pair and fight for yer man; because he’s giving all he has to fight for *you.* “

And you think that’s going to persuade anyone, let alone me, of anything?

Sorry, because if you do, think again

It will appeal to your fellow Trots, no doubt

But I am not and never have been a Trot

And I have certainly never suggested I was

All I did was write the policies JC used

And do the research on tax you used

All to create a better democratic society where justice would prevail

For which I think I have definitely done my bit

But if you want a revolution say so

I never said I did

I said I wanted to deliver change democratically

It is very clear you don’t

And that’s the problem Labour is facing – and why the discussion of what is happening in its ‘democracy’ is so misplaced. If it can be bought as easily as appears to be the case at present then it is clearly worthless

Richard. I’m conveying what someone has said of those calling for Corbyn to go in the language they use. Someone who is outside your bubble. It could be that people outside your bubble, and also mine, have things to say about how to get a message across. I don’t even really know what a Trot is. I doubt people who are supporting a man whose political outlook seems to reflect the quite centrist post-war Labour consensus could be a ‘Trot’ in the way that I suspect you think they are. However, I won’t take the term as the insult you seem to want me to. I doubt I’d necessarily consider anyone who wants revolution, as broad a term as that is, under the circumstances the world is now in to be a ‘Trot’. If achieving true democracy within a corrupt system means a form of revolution to bring about true democracy then perhaps that is needed. What form revolution takes is unclear; most people when referring to revolution mean ‘uprisings’, a continuation of something equally bad as its predecessor with a different face. I was barely political until 5 years ago when faced with what we’re facing in the world. Yes, people would prefer democratic change that’s why people have overwhelmingly, when given the rare chance, voted for the only person to put themselves forward as leader who is on a spectrum of their understanding and experience to be leader of the only parliamentary party they still trust to change things for them. Now even that aspect of democracy is being overturned by people who are not members of the party and also people within the PLP; but not by the overwhelming membership or at a democratic public vote. If they are presented with a system which they can see is not democratic, hence the immense cynicism, mistrust and contempt with which most people I know now hold parliament and MPs, then can that then be called democracy? I’ll be gracious and let you have the last word on this.

wheeling out the ‘Trots’ nonsense doesn’t help either, you should know better than that. The real anger needs to be addressed.

Angela Eagle ( a person you named in an earlier blog as a suitable candidate and now seem to have dismissed) stood up and came out with some of the most most arrogant and self-serving twaddle imaginable. She dismissed Corbyn with utter contempt whilst projecting herself as a unifier. There was a total absence of reflection/humility/consideration of the forces at work at the present moment. No honesty about how her party had abandoned some of the neediest people in the country/how they had failed through cowardice and lack of intellectual acumen to challenge Tory myths.

It’s this that is not good enough! If she represents competence them I’m a teapot!
I agree that David was well out of order in attacking you in that way. But let’s use a bit of nous before trading dodgy epithets -surely you can see that people are sick to death with 40 years of Labour’s uselessness and need a proper change. Many like David, I imagine, have worked for years for meaningful change only to find a Labour Party full to the hilt with careerist chancers and revolving door merchants. Even if Labour holds together we KNOW it will be as useful as a chocolate-fire guard in front of a steel smelting furnace. We’ve seen, some of us have felt the full impact of utter dejection in the face of it!

Let’s at least try and talk about the feelings behind this rather than trading ‘labels.’ Day by day the utter desuetude of the Westminster crew reveals more of its shallows to the point that they carry virtually no respect anymore, it must be lower than rock bottom -that’s the crisis. Banging on about ‘electability’ won’t help now -the whole shebang is in transition and we need to establish a proper Party of the Left with a different paradigm THEN worry about electability. The cart is being put in front of the horse by a long way.

We can’t paper over it, the crack will keep showing up. Even today, Theresa May revealed an abject contempt for people by feigning a concern for the hard hit after six years of some of the cruelest policies towards them which she whole-heartedly supported. This is the nonsense that these people get up to and are blatant about it and never held to account by the press/media.

That’s how vile and self-serving many of these people are. We’re sick of ’em.

And the Trot analysis is sound: the construction of democracy that is being favoured first very well in that tradition. What’s the point of denying what looks like a technical truth, which is how I used it? I did think first and know a bit about it

The leadership battle has become a total snafu, hasn’t it? JC insisting that according to the LP constitution his name must be on the ballot but his opponents disagree. Angela Eagle … what?? I’d rather watch paint dry. Your original question was ‘What is the left for?’. Well, the Labour Party is certainly showing the electorate what it’s NOT for … co-operation, harmony, justice, peace, tolerance, etc. Such a depressing example, especially for the young. Actually, I thought JC handled Andrew Marr rather well this morning. Doesn’t the BBC have any truly professional journalists? Marr is pathetic. Media-wise it seems like a race to the bottom, which favours the Tories’ simplistic sound-bites.

When one considers the amount of excellent advice there is available from world-class economists, sociologists, political scientists, marketing professionals et al. it beggars belief that it’s such a complex task to agree a basic manifesto offering a positive alternative to Tory Neo-liberalism, that can be understood by the general public. A good start would be to read Tax Research UK – lol! Seriously, though, one does wonder why it’s so difficult to define a role for a progressive co-alition, led by the LP, to drive a steam-roller through the policies and record of what is probably the worst government the country’s had for over a generation.

As you have rightly warned, it cannot be emphasised more strongly that the opposition parties need to get their act together URGENTLY. The window of opportunity is rapidly closing. After 9 September the Tories will close ranks around their newly anointed leader and the nation’s PM. Hope springs eternal.

There’s no option, Richard, you cannot paper over such a crisis-even if they manage to, the crisis will come a bit later, kicking that can down the road is not a good idea.

It our CLP many thought this was an historic moment in the fight against neo-liberalism and needed to be grasped.

My own view is that the Labour split will be part of a systemic Party splitting because the One Party neo-liberal state cannot hold. Tories may well split as well, the whole Westminster bubble is a gonner.

It’s a moments that could be positive but, I admit, has its dangers as well. Change is like that. If the Westminster bubble of incompetence and irrelevance does not cave in we could have a lot of civil unrest instead as people become more conscious of their voicelessness.

The splitting up process releases this tension in my view -let it happen.

I agree. OK isn’t good enough. At this stage somebody with natural authority is required to bang heads together – respectfully of course. Nobody springs to mind. They all seem to have their tribal agendas with no proven leadership skills.

Depressing indeed. But, out of chaos comes order. However, the immediate concern must be timning in view of the regressive policies that will be unleashed over the next 4 years, making it even more difficult to reframe the argument.

I understand where he’s coming from but Corbyn must step down. Not because he lacks integrity or even support among the PLP but because he is simply not a natural leader and is unacceptable to the majority of English voters. Sad but true.

It’s a political tragedy because he would be a valuable asset on the front bench – just not straight across from the next Prime Minister. Either May or Leadsom will be formidable foes – especially the latter, in spite of – or more probably because of – her lack of experience in a ministerial position. But … who knows? It’s all assumption and speculation.

Unless, of course, the Tories become so out of step with popular opinion, which is apossibility. Also the world economy is precariously balanced right now, so anything can happen on their watch. In any event, there’s no turning the clock back to 1979, however hard they try.

Any which way, without clear, unambigous policies an opposition party is completely ineffective. It’s not looking good is it?

(Aplogies for multiple postings – it’s been a home alone day and I’m not a sports fan).

Sad and really a bit disturbing that the Labour party cannot throw up two more able, charismatic or visionary candidates than Corbyn and Eagle for a leadership showdown. Both have their strengths, but neither seems fit to be the leader of the opposition at this time.

The party are in for a rough ride over the coming months and that does left leaning politics in this country no good at all.

Richard – are you issuing us with a challenge to get you interested in the job? Be careful because a number of us might have a go at it! The man who wrote the very sane Joy of Tax no less!!

I’m struck by how we seem to want to create and believe in an independent BoE (which is not what it is really made out to be).

But increasingly I see the Chancellor’s role as needing to be stripped of its political ideology and affiliation.

If I was starting afresh with a UK constitution I would seriously consider making the chancellorship part of the standing civil service – it should be depoliticised and written in the job description should be a duty to the British people to create economic justice for all.

There are of course simply loads of holes in the idea of course but I’m so sick to death of the mismanagement and lies told about fiscal policy that I’m desperate to try something new and bold.

We do need to have some check on the ambitions and warped ideas of too many of our politicians.

Hmm………..having lived through one of the most destructive chancellors (Gorgeous George) in my 50 years on the planet I do not share your enthusiasm for politicians making decisions about money.

As a public sector worker, I see the local variety waste money all of the time.

Politics with a small ‘p’ yes – but not the sort of destructive, ideologically driven stuff we have seen of late.

I never saw your book ‘The Joy of Tax’ as a political tome; other words beginning with ‘p’ abound instead: ‘practical’; ‘pragmatic’; ‘purposeful’ (not to mention ‘passionate’). It seemed beyond politics to be honest…….maybe I misinterpreted?

But, you are a busy man and I will accept your point and leave it at that.

I agree with Richard that there is no neutral territory and that everything is political in nature. The ‘independence’ of the BoE is a case in point: a total pretence of ‘neutrality’ which is a lie and a damaging one.

We need to admit that everything IS political so that politicians cannot hide behind dodgy notions of neutrality and that the electorate can see there are real choices available. The Tory myths (and Labour’s for that matter) are presented as if they are natural forces or metaphysical truths. We need transparency in the choices available -so that if a politician come up with the ‘there’s-no-momey’ crap we can say: ‘Not so, THAT is a choice you are making.

This, from you, would appear to be an important post. A few quick points:

1. Others have pointed out that Corbyn’s enigma is based upon his non-technocratic, anti-managerial style. The enigma is real, his following is strong among members and unions, what’s more he is the only UK politician that actually has a strong popular following (with the possible, and unfortunate, exception of Farage who has now quit.

2. Many voters do not like fairweather friends or revolving door leadership and a lot of Labour voters and members are incensed with a PLP who feel freely entitled to ignore the will of the membership. The question that everyone seems to be asking is: just who the hell do they think they are representing?

3. Labour doesn’t seem to have an alternative leader right now. Watson’s talks with the unions have fallen flat and Chilcot simply reinforces the fact that a Blairite will not be acceptable to the membership (not that they’ve got good a candidate anyway).

4. Labour drew level with the Tories in the polls just before the PLP decided to dump on Corbyn. That position has been lost as has the historic opportunity to exploit Tory divisions. People are annoyed about that and in no mood to reward the PLP.

5. Corbyn’s progressiveness, integrity and popular following give him the credibility to negotiate a coalition – which is something that Labour will need to think about down the track, and his measured approach toward the Brexit debate (the source of PLP ‘outrage’) leaves him well placed to woo back the Labour ‘leave’ voters whose feelings will shift as Brexit realities start to bite.

I agree that Corbyn’s approach has been poor on communication and parliamentary leadership (inexperience at that level, perhaps?). That problem needs to be resolved but putting points 1 to 5 together here it would appear that the solution needs to include J.C. as well as the PLP. If it involves a replacement leader then that will need to be through transition and be someone that he approves of. Unless, of course you can imagine a PLP operating in the absence of membership and union support. I can’t. The dummy-spit is over. Realistic horse-trading must now begin.

As to the question: “What is the left for?” Your justice declarations are sound but I would also emphasise the related issue of equality just as strongly. It has worked well for Bernie Sanders (for example) and it is not purely a point of social justice. Economically, inequality is recessionary, it undermines aggregate demand and generates excess capacity thus fuelling stagnation and financial crises. Even the IMF has been saying so.

Bearing that in mind issues of equality and productive investment cannot, perhaps, be redressed without addressing the matter of financial regulation.

I would add a note of caution about aiming for equality, as it is both unobtainable and undesirable.

The fact is, we are all different. Human beings are complex. We will never all be the same. Communism was one failed experiment of that by the former Soviet Republic.

The word equality does evoke sentiments we can agree with, but when it does so, it is always allied with justice. Non-discrimination is not a matter of equality, but justice. The way to overcome poverty is, not by making us all more equal (in the hope of a trickle down to the bottom), but by attending to individual cases of need, and that is justice. Richard has a good diagram to illustrate poverty in his book, the Courageous State. His diagrams show that everyone is different.

Equality appeals to those with a tendency of reductionism, who look at people and try to find a greatest common denominator, which they say must be the same for all. Unfortunately, that is too simplistic, because people are complex individuals with their own specific needs and desires.

While it is laudable to reduce inequality in gender pay, for instance, the motive is not to increase equality between men and women, but to end the injustice of a woman, with the same ability as a man, not receiving the same amount of take home wages for doing the same job. While that could be called equality of one single aspect, the term is too homogeneous to allow critical distinctions.

Yeah, OK that’s quite articulate and probably compatible with philosopher, John Rawls’ take on the subject but it has bugger all to do with what I, or someone like Bernie Sanders, is actually talking about.

I am specifically referring the socially unjust, unnecessary and economically unsustainable decline in economic equality that has occurred in the neo-liberal era.

It is hard to believe in politics and politicians when both are dominated and promulgated by lies and untruths.

What was an art of the possible in the context of dialectics has become the art of winning at all costs which has produced a mono culture where concepts like ‘austerity’ and ‘the deserving and undeserving poor’ are accepted by the major players.

Until politics corrects itself, I do not accept that political meddling in taxation and fiscal policy is valid.

I want scientists to run budgets and policy who understand cause and effect; not laymen who become politicians who then claim to know how to manage big policy concepts in an objective way and are blind to the consequences of their actions.

I don’t want to hurt politicians but I am heartily sick of the lot of them.

“I want scientists to run budgets and policy who understand cause and effect”

What, like those technocratic idiots that revived and embellished the failed ‘science’ of neo-classical economics and smothered it with a smoke-screen of unintelligible calculus.
They may have given academic ‘credibility’ to the neo-liberals but they have also delivered a diminished world that stumbles from one crisis to the next.

Not all sciences are equal, some just pretend. I, for one, do not a world that is run by privileged students that sail straight out of Uni and into technocracy without spending one minute of their carrers in the real world that they are shaping.

I think that I’ve made it clear that I think we need a proper scientific approach to these matters and certainly not the faux science we’ve had from neo-liberalism.

I did not advocate ‘students’ either – I was advocating those who are qualified as scientists using true scientific measures to observe what actually happens from a policy stimulus and taking this method into social policy and economics.

I also based my comments on some new approaches to economics that the physics community might be able to bring to economics (as well as others).

In other words I am advocating classical scientific rigor in the application of all policy – social, economic – whatever. Much of what we suffer under is a matter of opinion – not fact. Witness BREXIT.

I’m so desperate I’d try anything, but not to try is to fail.

You seem to have it in for ‘experts’. I hope that you are not a fan of Michael Gove.

People like Gove sound like experts. The bankers who created the 2008 crash also sounded like experts and the economists whom even the Queen noted failed to see the crash coming marketed themselves as experts.

People like Danny Dorling however whose work on the geography of poverty are real experts but are regularly belittled and mocked on our televisions and in our media.

Not all experts are hacks Marco or students or even privileged. Lets treasure the ones who genuinely improve our lives eh?